(02-09-2015 03:41 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 10:06 AM)miko33 Wrote:  A great read.

http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januar...l-progress

I think the author's major flaw is the presumption of a universal morality that is predicated on the accession of science. The subject matter is far too nuanced for such a simple explanation.

What do you mean that he's building a universal morality based on science? Science is knowledge, so are you stating that he assumes that we can achieve a more universal code of ethics if we have more knowledge of how the natural world works? If so, I don't see the issue here. The flip side to terms like universal/objective would be subjective. Are you stating that morality is subjective and depends upon the beliefs of a culture, and that what one culture believes is equivalent to what another believes?

A lot of morality is objective in nature. In most cases, killing is bad, property rights should be respected, and people should have the right to pursue their happiness provided that they are not directly harming others. The golden rule is an objective morality that has been stated in a number of cultures outside of Palestine.